What do you think?
Rate this book
Pulp Fiction: A Quentin Tarantino Screenplay
Presents the screenplay of a film that features three intertwined crime stories inspired by the pulp magazine stories of the thirties and forties
160 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1994
57 people are currently reading
3267 people want to read
About the author
Quentin Tarantino
53 books1,749 followersQuentin Jerome Tarantino is an Academy Award- and Palme d'Or-winning American film director, screenwriter and actor. He rose to fame in the early 1990s as an independent filmmaker whose films used nonlinear storylines and stylized violence. His films include Reservoir Dogs (1992), Pulp Fiction (1994), Jackie Brown (1997), Kill Bill (Vol. 1 2003, Vol. 2 2004), Death Proof (2007), and Inglourious Basterds (2009).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 197 reviews
January 22, 2023
Three stories, about one story. The non-linear stylised crime fiction drama's screenplay probably gives as much pleasure as the film for someone like me who's seen the film a number of times. If I'd read this 20 years ago it'd be a Five Star read, but the troubling use of the N-word, by a White male (Tarantino as 'Jimmie') just really looks like, and reads like, Quentin wanted to see himself on film using it in the way that he does.
Aside from that, so much of this is golden, the weird relationship that 'Butch' has with his partner; how 'Marsellus' and 'Butch' make peace; the respect given and received by 'Wolf'. It's such a clever plot in so many ways, and the stylised dialogue works to a tee as does the dark comedy, which had me chuckling aloud despite having watched the film so many times. 9 out of 12, Four Star fabulous read.
2020 read
Aside from that, so much of this is golden, the weird relationship that 'Butch' has with his partner; how 'Marsellus' and 'Butch' make peace; the respect given and received by 'Wolf'. It's such a clever plot in so many ways, and the stylised dialogue works to a tee as does the dark comedy, which had me chuckling aloud despite having watched the film so many times. 9 out of 12, Four Star fabulous read.
2020 read
December 4, 2017
After the four authors listed as influences on my author page - Stephen King, William Shakespeare, Bret Easton Ellis and Chuck Palahniuk - Quentin Tarantino is probably the next biggest influence on my writing.
When I say Quentin Tarantino is an influence, I am not only talking about Quentin Tarantino the filmmaker, I am also talking about Quentin Tarantino the writer. While those who have watched his films will be aware of his great storytelling and his amazing dialogue, when you read his screenplays you are also struck by just how good his descriptive writing is.
It is easy to see how his screenplays became hot property in Hollywood, even before Reservoir Dogs made his name as a filmmaker. The words just jump off the page and paint pictures in your mind. While Pulp Fiction may not be my favourite Quentin Tarantino film (although it is excellent), it is certainly my favourite Quentin Tarantino screenplay.
If they ever make a film out of Drug Gang, I would like Quentin Tarantino to direct…and I might even let him help me with the screenplay! ;-)
When I say Quentin Tarantino is an influence, I am not only talking about Quentin Tarantino the filmmaker, I am also talking about Quentin Tarantino the writer. While those who have watched his films will be aware of his great storytelling and his amazing dialogue, when you read his screenplays you are also struck by just how good his descriptive writing is.
It is easy to see how his screenplays became hot property in Hollywood, even before Reservoir Dogs made his name as a filmmaker. The words just jump off the page and paint pictures in your mind. While Pulp Fiction may not be my favourite Quentin Tarantino film (although it is excellent), it is certainly my favourite Quentin Tarantino screenplay.
If they ever make a film out of Drug Gang, I would like Quentin Tarantino to direct…and I might even let him help me with the screenplay! ;-)
December 30, 2009
Alot of attention is given to the ultra profane modern jive that Tarantino's characters tend to use in this movie. But there's another reason it gets so much attention. Here is a script that anyone can look through and use as an example as to how to build character through dialog--not just by what a character says and how they say it, but just the simple choice of topic. Even as the action takes place around them and through them, the characters remain distinctly and philosophically themselves. For example, without the previous scene and dialog that took place therein, the scene where Butch get's angry enough at Fabiana to smash a TV to pieces would color our perception unsympathetic and out of balance. By grounding his characters with dialog that usually has nothing to do with plot directly, Tarantino can immerse them in the most extraordinary circumstances and keep the audience riveted. Contrast this with movies like Transformers 2 where the dialog (when it's quiet enough for it) serves as a mouthpiece for exposition or cheap attemtps at humor--boring!
November 11, 2023
Well, it's definitely original and I loved reading it way more than watching it 😬 though, seeing a movie before, helped a lot to imagine how it all looks like. I might give another chance for the movie.
January 15, 2023
Somehow I'd only ever heard of Tarantino till 3 days ago. I knew the names to some of his movies, Pulp Fiction in particular, but not an iota more about them.
When recently I found myself on an academically calibrated siesta, I decided it was time to kill time instead of letting it kill me. I wanted to pick a long movie or a short show up, one which would carry me through a couple of mundane hours. I don't know why, or how, I ended up watching a western on slavery in America called "Django Unchained".
And that is how, 3 days ago, things changed.
I loved the movie, obviously. Scene One to Scene Last, it had me gripped; that's not too many scenes, actually. Quentin Tarantino makes decently lengthy movies — Django's 2 and a half hours long — but they're only ever composed of not more than, oh, 10-12 scenes.
I've since learned that that is one of his trademarks: scenes of *extended* dialogue, which usually have some sort of violent resolution. Each scene, so to say, plays out in parts, as acts in a play.
*Now I disagree with the term extended. I think what's remarkable about this dialogue, other than the fact they're effing baller, is that they represent actual day-to-day conversation fairly accurately. At least in terms of waywardness and distraction.
Inglourious Basterds was the film I viewed next, which, needless to say, I also dearly loved. Such great acting. Such great frames framed.
Then, naturally, I came to Pulp Fiction.
And things changed again.
The movie stirred something in me. A very visceral joybox unlidded.
It felt like such a random movie from the moment it started. Or maybe random isn't it, maybe "casual" would be more apt a word. Things just kept happening and the characters — and us — kept reacting to them and rolling with them, and then the movie ended. Just like that.
"It was— it was like, he put on this really great magic show," I would say to my roommate after the credits rolled, "and— and then it turned out that it wasn't just magic tricks he was pulling, it was actual honest-to-God magic, but then he just left without telling me how on Earth he made that be possible. So damn rude."
Somehow all this was achieved through dialogue. I mean, watching Pulp Fiction after watching Django and IB, the cinematography and acting were nothing to bark about. But the dialogue really, REALLY stood out. It was the kind of dialogue you have with yourself in your heads all the time and Quentin just came and told the actors to read it out loud. I was baffled, at the sheer audacity and awesomeness of it.
Thus I came to read the screenplay. "Maybe it wasn't too good," I told myself. "Maybe what felt random was, indeed, random and not planned. It just felt unique to you 'cuz you didn't have a clue what you were getting yourself into."
But, reading the screenplay, I had to swallow the pill — that the writing truly was atrociously good. See, what I mean by it is, despite the random not being random, every word that dictates this film is unpretentious and unassuming as can be. You can sit and dissect the script if so you wish but frankly everything's laid out for you to enjoy from the beginning. Reading the screenplay I found some golden nuggets I'd missed in the film, but mostly I was able to have that great straightforward joybox unlidding artconsumption encore.
I went on to watch a few interviews of Quentin on YouTube and I'm not sure if I entirely dig the fella. Either way, what a madlad.
What a script.
When recently I found myself on an academically calibrated siesta, I decided it was time to kill time instead of letting it kill me. I wanted to pick a long movie or a short show up, one which would carry me through a couple of mundane hours. I don't know why, or how, I ended up watching a western on slavery in America called "Django Unchained".
And that is how, 3 days ago, things changed.
I loved the movie, obviously. Scene One to Scene Last, it had me gripped; that's not too many scenes, actually. Quentin Tarantino makes decently lengthy movies — Django's 2 and a half hours long — but they're only ever composed of not more than, oh, 10-12 scenes.
I've since learned that that is one of his trademarks: scenes of *extended* dialogue, which usually have some sort of violent resolution. Each scene, so to say, plays out in parts, as acts in a play.
*Now I disagree with the term extended. I think what's remarkable about this dialogue, other than the fact they're effing baller, is that they represent actual day-to-day conversation fairly accurately. At least in terms of waywardness and distraction.
Inglourious Basterds was the film I viewed next, which, needless to say, I also dearly loved. Such great acting. Such great frames framed.
Then, naturally, I came to Pulp Fiction.
And things changed again.
The movie stirred something in me. A very visceral joybox unlidded.
It felt like such a random movie from the moment it started. Or maybe random isn't it, maybe "casual" would be more apt a word. Things just kept happening and the characters — and us — kept reacting to them and rolling with them, and then the movie ended. Just like that.
"It was— it was like, he put on this really great magic show," I would say to my roommate after the credits rolled, "and— and then it turned out that it wasn't just magic tricks he was pulling, it was actual honest-to-God magic, but then he just left without telling me how on Earth he made that be possible. So damn rude."
Somehow all this was achieved through dialogue. I mean, watching Pulp Fiction after watching Django and IB, the cinematography and acting were nothing to bark about. But the dialogue really, REALLY stood out. It was the kind of dialogue you have with yourself in your heads all the time and Quentin just came and told the actors to read it out loud. I was baffled, at the sheer audacity and awesomeness of it.
Thus I came to read the screenplay. "Maybe it wasn't too good," I told myself. "Maybe what felt random was, indeed, random and not planned. It just felt unique to you 'cuz you didn't have a clue what you were getting yourself into."
But, reading the screenplay, I had to swallow the pill — that the writing truly was atrociously good. See, what I mean by it is, despite the random not being random, every word that dictates this film is unpretentious and unassuming as can be. You can sit and dissect the script if so you wish but frankly everything's laid out for you to enjoy from the beginning. Reading the screenplay I found some golden nuggets I'd missed in the film, but mostly I was able to have that great straightforward joybox unlidding artconsumption encore.
I went on to watch a few interviews of Quentin on YouTube and I'm not sure if I entirely dig the fella. Either way, what a madlad.
What a script.
July 26, 2022
Genial, ya que es el guion de la película.
May 5, 2016
Guión original de la segunda película de Tarantino
Recomiendo ver la película mas que ver el guión, pero si tenéis curiosidad por saber que diferencias hay entre la versión final y el guion, en un spoiler mas abajo os he puesto la diferencia mas notable.
Es difícil explicar de que va el filme sería un ejercicio en futilidad. Quentin se adueña de la forma y fondo del género, y hace con él lo que quiere, destruyendo a su paso cualquier convención que pudiéramos tener alrededor del cine "de crimen", la forma en que está estructurado el filme te garantiza una experiencia tensa e intrigante, el público debe mantenerse alerta todo el tiempo: parpadeas y te pierdes algo.
En realidad la película son 2 cortometrajes, y tres mediometrajes, que se unen básicamente por la conexión de los personajes y un pequeño hilo conductor, se podrían ver cada mediometrajes o los cortos por separado, pero soy de la opinión que esto estropearía la magia de la cinta.
También para quien le interese se aprecia algunos cambios a la forma de decir las cosas entre el guión y la película, también recordar que la película esta doblada y el guión esta traducido, así que resulta complicado saber que son licencias de las traducciones y que son cambios por el director en el momento de grabar o sugeridos por los actores después de leer el guión.
Bueno este libro lo he encontrado en libros vagabundos y decidí adoptarlo al pobre, el libro promete lo que da, que es el guion de pulp fiction, pero personalmente os aconsejo ver la película, a no ser que seáis algún tipo de fan que quiera vender su alma al diablo por poder leer el guion, en ese caso yo por solo 500€ estaría dispuesto de separarme de el (Que?, si cuela cuela, aparte que estoy salvando su alma del diablo, eso no tiene precio...)
Como siempre este tipo de material le don un 9,5 mas que nada porque el 10 esta reservado a las cosas de mi lista de favoritos
Nota: 9,5 (5 stars)
Mas reviews en https://www.goodreads.com/review/list... dar a like si te a sido útil esta información, también puedes seguirme si tienes interés en ver mas reseñas como esta y si tenéis cualquier duda, queréis debatir algo, avisarme de algún error o cualquier otra cosa lo podéis hacer en los comentarios. ^^
Recomiendo ver la película mas que ver el guión, pero si tenéis curiosidad por saber que diferencias hay entre la versión final y el guion, en un spoiler mas abajo os he puesto la diferencia mas notable.
Es difícil explicar de que va el filme sería un ejercicio en futilidad. Quentin se adueña de la forma y fondo del género, y hace con él lo que quiere, destruyendo a su paso cualquier convención que pudiéramos tener alrededor del cine "de crimen", la forma en que está estructurado el filme te garantiza una experiencia tensa e intrigante, el público debe mantenerse alerta todo el tiempo: parpadeas y te pierdes algo.
En realidad la película son 2 cortometrajes, y tres mediometrajes, que se unen básicamente por la conexión de los personajes y un pequeño hilo conductor, se podrían ver cada mediometrajes o los cortos por separado, pero soy de la opinión que esto estropearía la magia de la cinta.
También para quien le interese se aprecia algunos cambios a la forma de decir las cosas entre el guión y la película, también recordar que la película esta doblada y el guión esta traducido, así que resulta complicado saber que son licencias de las traducciones y que son cambios por el director en el momento de grabar o sugeridos por los actores después de leer el guión.
Bueno este libro lo he encontrado en libros vagabundos y decidí adoptarlo al pobre, el libro promete lo que da, que es el guion de pulp fiction, pero personalmente os aconsejo ver la película, a no ser que seáis algún tipo de fan que quiera vender su alma al diablo por poder leer el guion, en ese caso yo por solo 500€ estaría dispuesto de separarme de el (Que?, si cuela cuela, aparte que estoy salvando su alma del diablo, eso no tiene precio...)
Como siempre este tipo de material le don un 9,5 mas que nada porque el 10 esta reservado a las cosas de mi lista de favoritos
Nota: 9,5 (5 stars)
Mas reviews en https://www.goodreads.com/review/list... dar a like si te a sido útil esta información, también puedes seguirme si tienes interés en ver mas reseñas como esta y si tenéis cualquier duda, queréis debatir algo, avisarme de algún error o cualquier otra cosa lo podéis hacer en los comentarios. ^^
October 11, 2015
Tarantino's work is timeless and above all memorable. The story focuses on more than one story which makes it interesting enough to stay engaged. Reading the screenplay was a different experience than watching the film because you get to read the scenes that were added and deleted. Being able to read the screenplay and visualize the scenes was also a plus. I would recommend any Tarantino and/or Pulp Fiction fan to read this screenplay as it makes the Pulp Fiction experience a little more interesting and different. "Zed's dead, baby, Zed's dead."
Read
December 11, 2008 What I love about Quentin Tarantino's writing is the delicately written and well placed dialogue that makes every line just as great as the last. The lines written in this film make even the smallest character seem badass. It's like with each descriptive and quotable line you are put in that charater's place, which is awesome because you could only dream of hearing those perpectual quotes come out of your mouth in real life.
May 24, 2024
In 2013 I took an American Lit class at UT and our final exam was to watch this movie, study the screenplay, and tie its themes to traditional American literature. Since then this has been an all-time favorite. Amy and I recently went to a Pulp Fiction movie party at Alamo and I was once again so enamored by the dialogue and I re-read the screenplay lol
August 29, 2019
I mean, you pretty much know what you’re getting here. This is literally the screenplay for the Tarantino movie, and because of that it’s hard to give it anything below a 4.5/5. It’s a fantastic movie and the screenplay is just as good on its own.
Better still, it comes with a bunch of photographs included in there as well as some scenes that were either removed or changed for the final thing. It’ll probably help if you’ve seen the movie at least a couple of times because you’ll be more familiar with that and you’ll start to understand why those decisions were made.
I ended up reading it and then watching the movie in the same day, and that’s probably the best way to go about it if you ask me. I had lots of fun with it and I’m glad that I read it, but it helped that I was a fan of the movie already and that I’ve studied screenplays and even written one of my own before. What more do you want me to say?
Better still, it comes with a bunch of photographs included in there as well as some scenes that were either removed or changed for the final thing. It’ll probably help if you’ve seen the movie at least a couple of times because you’ll be more familiar with that and you’ll start to understand why those decisions were made.
I ended up reading it and then watching the movie in the same day, and that’s probably the best way to go about it if you ask me. I had lots of fun with it and I’m glad that I read it, but it helped that I was a fan of the movie already and that I’ve studied screenplays and even written one of my own before. What more do you want me to say?
February 27, 2009
Great read. Brought my screenwriting game up. Plus I couldn't stop laughing while reading the exchange between Jules and Brett. "Say what again, I dare ya, I double dare ya motherfucker!"
You serious?
See, my only issue with QT is his overuse of the word 'nigger'. His defense is he grew up around african-american folk, but if this is true, he would know that the way the word would be used by Jules and Marsellus would be "Nigga" not "nigger". And Samuel and Ving caught onto this which is why it changed from the script to screen.
But as a whole, good stuff.
You serious?
See, my only issue with QT is his overuse of the word 'nigger'. His defense is he grew up around african-american folk, but if this is true, he would know that the way the word would be used by Jules and Marsellus would be "Nigga" not "nigger". And Samuel and Ving caught onto this which is why it changed from the script to screen.
But as a whole, good stuff.
May 6, 2013
ببساطة فيلم بالب فيكشن هو افضل فيلم شاهدته في حياتي الفيلم عبارة عن 3قصص يجمع بينها شخص مشترك القصة الاولي قصة فينسنت فيجا وجولز والثانية قصة فينسنت فيجا( وميا) والثالثة قصة بوتش الملاكم الفاشل يجمع بينهم مارسيلاس والس زعيم العصابة الفيلم يتحدث عن الجريمة وجدواها ونهاية حياة الجريمة في قصة تجمع بين الصدفة والغرابة،قصة معمولة بحرفية وفيلم لازم تشوفه.
March 13, 2016
Pump it!
Louder.
Black Eyed Peas, anyone ?
I don't know, there is something about Tarantino's visual style that extends even to the written form.
High off Hateful Eight. QT, one of my personal heroes.
November 13, 2015
Just read this again and it is so freaking over-the-top. What's amazing is how far QT stretched. Not easy to go that far out-of-bounds.
February 24, 2025
The most quotable movie of all time
February 17, 2022
Ja saps que t'espero a la sortida,
ho he fet tota la vida, comença a ser fosc.
Sec a la barana d'alumini,
desitjant que el metro arribi, per tenir-te a prop.
Sé que avui vens enfadada,
soc un idiota a vegades, ja surts del vagó.
Llavors apareixes per l'escala, i em fas un petó a la galta,
i el món és millor.
Em fas tremolar, tens la mà freda, fas que mai plori de pena,
fas que mai falti el desig de ser dins teu agafa'm l'esquena.
Ens va costar, ja saps: això d'estimar s'ha d'aprendre.
Però en la pell contra la pell t'estimo tant que em peta el ventre.
No hi ha res més maco que llevar-me al teu costat,
res pitjor que les ratllades de quan marxem ""cabrejats"".
Són tres núvols miserables en un dia assolellat,
ja vaig dir-t'ho l'altre dia, que crec que m'he enamorat...
Dels teus ulls brillants, mirada clara.
De quan camines per casa, dels llavis del cos.
De saber que si estàs lluny, somio
que em preguntis que rumio,
i et respongui un petó.
Ja és negra nit a Barcelona,
tu marxes d'aquí una estona,
i això ens farà forts.
Si el vent ens torna a dur on érem,
et vindré a buscar a Sagrera,
la vida és això.
m'ha recordat molt al videoclip de "kilometre 3" de ginestà
gràcies cris
ho he fet tota la vida, comença a ser fosc.
Sec a la barana d'alumini,
desitjant que el metro arribi, per tenir-te a prop.
Sé que avui vens enfadada,
soc un idiota a vegades, ja surts del vagó.
Llavors apareixes per l'escala, i em fas un petó a la galta,
i el món és millor.
Em fas tremolar, tens la mà freda, fas que mai plori de pena,
fas que mai falti el desig de ser dins teu agafa'm l'esquena.
Ens va costar, ja saps: això d'estimar s'ha d'aprendre.
Però en la pell contra la pell t'estimo tant que em peta el ventre.
No hi ha res més maco que llevar-me al teu costat,
res pitjor que les ratllades de quan marxem ""cabrejats"".
Són tres núvols miserables en un dia assolellat,
ja vaig dir-t'ho l'altre dia, que crec que m'he enamorat...
Dels teus ulls brillants, mirada clara.
De quan camines per casa, dels llavis del cos.
De saber que si estàs lluny, somio
que em preguntis que rumio,
i et respongui un petó.
Ja és negra nit a Barcelona,
tu marxes d'aquí una estona,
i això ens farà forts.
Si el vent ens torna a dur on érem,
et vindré a buscar a Sagrera,
la vida és això.
m'ha recordat molt al videoclip de "kilometre 3" de ginestà
gràcies cris
February 14, 2025
1994 was a golden year for film. Quentin Tarantino’s PULP FICTION runs at 2 hours and 58 minutes.
In regards to this script format, we are treated to how the writer and director, Tarantino, presents his ideas and stories created with Roger Avary.
The cover page title is CAPITALIZED, underlined, and features spaces between each letter
I.e. : P U L P.
May 1993 is listed as the “last draft,” Blue: revised 8/18/93, Pink: revised 9/8/93, and Green: revised 10/5/93. Unfortunately, the pages in this reproduction are not color coded.
The film is broken down into 93 scenes, properly numbered on both sides of the page on the same line upon scene introduction. There are roughly three indents before CHARACTERS are identified for speech. (directions, if any) are under their designated name.
Page numbers are listed in the top right corner. SCENES, intro of NEW CHARACTERS, SPEAKING CHARACTERS, ACTIONS, NOISES, and OTHER FILMS REFERENCED, are all capitalized. Some CHARACTERS’ names are underlined with descriptions underneath. Underlined words in dialogue are for emphasis.
SHOT STYLE, INSERTS, CUTS, etc are CAPITALIZED. Examples include: CREDIT SEQUENCE:, STEADICAM, DOLLY into a MEDIUM, OUT OF FRAME, COLORFUL PROCESS SHOT, VINCENT’S POV:, ZOOM, WE JUXTAPOSE, CAMERA, HIGH ANGLE SHOT, LOW ANGLE MEDIUM SHOT, INSERT SPEEDOMETER, WE HEAR, like a DOCUMENTARY in an emergency ward, WE MOVE, WE FOLLOW, OFF SCREEN, FADE UP:, DISSOLVE TO:, FISH-TAILING, BOXER’S PUNCHES, SEE, THROUGH THE WINSHIELD, DOUBLE-TAKE:, SHINES., and FADE TO BLACK.
CU = close up. b.g. = background
Presented chronologically are unique words and phrases used throughout the entirety of the script (apologies if some are repeats):
Spires-like, healthy number, munching, “HIS GIRL FRIDAY” fashion, persona, in-control professional, psychopathic, hair-triggered, loose cannon
Gas guzzling, homeless-ridden, dusters, hacienda-style, beeline, in over their heads, “Flock of Seagulls” haircut, preppy-looking, blow-dry haircut, transfixed, imploding, “vengeance is mine” expression, “what the fuck” blank look, cherry-red, bellies up to the bar, manners-teaching business, ponder, wooly, case of works (utensils for shooting up), imanating, bubbly, saucy, bobby socks, bullshit, mamou, surly, quaint, wannabe beboppers (actually Melrose types), paging Phillip Morris, drink their milk, acting a fool, uncomfortable silence, powders her nose, hellspopinish, oldie-but-goodie, devilish twist, swiveling rhythm, shaking their asses, the john, k.d. lang, fancy style, happy clam, cool drag, madman, unbeknownst-to-her heroin, trusty, human Dust Buster, on fucking fire, slack-jawed, greased lighting, shifting like Robocop, posture of a bag of water, bon vivant, moth-ridden, stripe-assed ape, knocking over shit, ready to do this, scooted, see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil
35ish, zzzzzz’s, fireplug, pandemonium, ape shit, strangeness, dunking for bees, having their way, for the life of him, rooting around, not on your life, like a rag doll, whimpering rapist, Chrome Chopper, teardrop gas tank, like a rocket fighting for orbit, humping a hot hog named “GRACE,” lovebirds
Exactly the same time, dry firing, late-20s, easily doing 135 mph, the plan of action, gobs, pantomimes like he’s in a “DEAD ZONE” trance, with gusto, far way in thought, we recognize, like lightning, till, more on guard, like a rattlesnake, dead-aimed, two bass-ass dudes
Other examples of unique descriptive language include:
“smokes cigarettes like they’re going out of style” (1)
“A smiles breaks out on the young woman’s face” (6) Smiles?
“Mia’s version of the twist is that of a sexy cat.” (50)
“Imitating what he did earlier, licks the paper and rolls it into a pretty good cigarette. Maybe a little too fat, but not bad for a first try. Mia thinks so anyway.” (51)
“Brett has just shit his pants. He’s not crying or whimpering, but he’s so full of fear, it’s as if his body is imploding.” (22)
“like a political prisoner” (26)
“Lance demonstrates a stabbing motion, which looks like ‘The Shape’ killing its victims in ‘HALLOWEEN.’” (62)
“The sky is PISSIN’ DOWN RAIN.” (69)
“This weapon seems made to order for the Brothers Grimm downstairs.” (106)
“KABOOM!!!” (107)
“Bursting out the door and blowing them all away while they’re fucking around is the way to go.” (113)
“Jules starts to ‘Jimmie’ him.” (123)
“The same light SHINES from the case. Pumpkin’s expression goes to amazement. Honey Bunny across the room, can’t see shit.” (153)
THE END is underlined.
In regards to this script format, we are treated to how the writer and director, Tarantino, presents his ideas and stories created with Roger Avary.
The cover page title is CAPITALIZED, underlined, and features spaces between each letter
I.e. : P U L P.
May 1993 is listed as the “last draft,” Blue: revised 8/18/93, Pink: revised 9/8/93, and Green: revised 10/5/93. Unfortunately, the pages in this reproduction are not color coded.
The film is broken down into 93 scenes, properly numbered on both sides of the page on the same line upon scene introduction. There are roughly three indents before CHARACTERS are identified for speech. (directions, if any) are under their designated name.
Page numbers are listed in the top right corner. SCENES, intro of NEW CHARACTERS, SPEAKING CHARACTERS, ACTIONS, NOISES, and OTHER FILMS REFERENCED, are all capitalized. Some CHARACTERS’ names are underlined with descriptions underneath. Underlined words in dialogue are for emphasis.
SHOT STYLE, INSERTS, CUTS, etc are CAPITALIZED. Examples include: CREDIT SEQUENCE:, STEADICAM, DOLLY into a MEDIUM, OUT OF FRAME, COLORFUL PROCESS SHOT, VINCENT’S POV:, ZOOM, WE JUXTAPOSE, CAMERA, HIGH ANGLE SHOT, LOW ANGLE MEDIUM SHOT, INSERT SPEEDOMETER, WE HEAR, like a DOCUMENTARY in an emergency ward, WE MOVE, WE FOLLOW, OFF SCREEN, FADE UP:, DISSOLVE TO:, FISH-TAILING, BOXER’S PUNCHES, SEE, THROUGH THE WINSHIELD, DOUBLE-TAKE:, SHINES., and FADE TO BLACK.
CU = close up. b.g. = background
Presented chronologically are unique words and phrases used throughout the entirety of the script (apologies if some are repeats):
Spires-like, healthy number, munching, “HIS GIRL FRIDAY” fashion, persona, in-control professional, psychopathic, hair-triggered, loose cannon
Gas guzzling, homeless-ridden, dusters, hacienda-style, beeline, in over their heads, “Flock of Seagulls” haircut, preppy-looking, blow-dry haircut, transfixed, imploding, “vengeance is mine” expression, “what the fuck” blank look, cherry-red, bellies up to the bar, manners-teaching business, ponder, wooly, case of works (utensils for shooting up), imanating, bubbly, saucy, bobby socks, bullshit, mamou, surly, quaint, wannabe beboppers (actually Melrose types), paging Phillip Morris, drink their milk, acting a fool, uncomfortable silence, powders her nose, hellspopinish, oldie-but-goodie, devilish twist, swiveling rhythm, shaking their asses, the john, k.d. lang, fancy style, happy clam, cool drag, madman, unbeknownst-to-her heroin, trusty, human Dust Buster, on fucking fire, slack-jawed, greased lighting, shifting like Robocop, posture of a bag of water, bon vivant, moth-ridden, stripe-assed ape, knocking over shit, ready to do this, scooted, see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil
35ish, zzzzzz’s, fireplug, pandemonium, ape shit, strangeness, dunking for bees, having their way, for the life of him, rooting around, not on your life, like a rag doll, whimpering rapist, Chrome Chopper, teardrop gas tank, like a rocket fighting for orbit, humping a hot hog named “GRACE,” lovebirds
Exactly the same time, dry firing, late-20s, easily doing 135 mph, the plan of action, gobs, pantomimes like he’s in a “DEAD ZONE” trance, with gusto, far way in thought, we recognize, like lightning, till, more on guard, like a rattlesnake, dead-aimed, two bass-ass dudes
Other examples of unique descriptive language include:
“smokes cigarettes like they’re going out of style” (1)
“A smiles breaks out on the young woman’s face” (6) Smiles?
“Mia’s version of the twist is that of a sexy cat.” (50)
“Imitating what he did earlier, licks the paper and rolls it into a pretty good cigarette. Maybe a little too fat, but not bad for a first try. Mia thinks so anyway.” (51)
“Brett has just shit his pants. He’s not crying or whimpering, but he’s so full of fear, it’s as if his body is imploding.” (22)
“like a political prisoner” (26)
“Lance demonstrates a stabbing motion, which looks like ‘The Shape’ killing its victims in ‘HALLOWEEN.’” (62)
“The sky is PISSIN’ DOWN RAIN.” (69)
“This weapon seems made to order for the Brothers Grimm downstairs.” (106)
“KABOOM!!!” (107)
“Bursting out the door and blowing them all away while they’re fucking around is the way to go.” (113)
“Jules starts to ‘Jimmie’ him.” (123)
“The same light SHINES from the case. Pumpkin’s expression goes to amazement. Honey Bunny across the room, can’t see shit.” (153)
THE END is underlined.
June 19, 2024
M’ha encantat l’experiència de llegir el guió complert (+escenes eliminades del film final) de la meva peli preferida; sempre ha sigut un art en tota regla aquesta pel.lícula, i el llibre t’ho fa pair el doble, sempre és increíble llegir allò que ha creat una ment genial, m’ho he passat molt bé i si us agrada la peli ho recomano moltíssim.
May 5, 2016
May 1993. Last draft.
June 11, 2025
پالپ فیکشن یک جهان است، نه یک فیلم. جهانی که در آن اخلاق جایش را به سبک میدهد، خشونت طعم شوخی میگیرد، و ابتذال، فلسفه میزاید. این فیلم، نه یک داستان خطی، بلکه کولاژیست از تکههای بیربط زندگی آدمهایی که در منطق یک جهان معیوب، نه قهرماناند، نه قربانی، نه خیر، نه شر. آنها فقط «هستند»؛ با تمام تناقضهایشان، با تمام بیمعناییشان، و شاید دقیقاً همین بیمعناییست که به آنها معنا میدهد.
غرور و وفاداری، دو نیروی درونی و گاه متضاد، در تار و پود روایت تنیده شدهاند. بوچ بهخاطر غروری شخصی و حس وفاداری به اصول خودش، ریسک میکند، خیانت نمیکند، و به جای فرار از مهلکه، به دلش میزند. وینسنت با تمام خونسردیاش، بندهایست اسیر غرور، که سهلانگاریاش – در کشدارترین و کماحساسترین لحظه – به سقوطش ختم میشود. وفاداری به ارباب، به شریک، به معشوق، حتی وفاداری به یک سبک زندگی – همواره چون خطی پنهان زیر خشونت و دیالوگهای بیرحمانهی فیلم جاریست. این وفاداری گاه تقدیر را رقم میزند، و گاه فاجعه را.
تارانتینو در این اثر، ساختار کلاسیک روایت را منفجر میکند. او با زمان بازی میکند، با ژانر بازی میکند، با تماشاگر بازی میکند. دیالوگهایی که ظاهراً بیاهمیتاند – مثل بحث دربارهی نام همبرگر در فرانسه یا ماساژ پا – در واقع شاکلهی جهانبینی فیلماند: جهانی که در آن چیزهای بیربط، تعیینکنندهاند. جهانی که مرگ میتواند در لحظهای مسخره، وسط حرف زدن از نوشابه، فرا برسد.
طنز سیاه فیلم، نه فقط ابزار سرگرمیست، بلکه چاقوییست بر گلوی فرهنگ. لحظهای که یک تفنگ وسط ماشین شلیک میکند به سر یک جوان و بعد با خونسردی دربارهی تمیز کردن ماشین بحث میشود، خندهای در گلوی تماشاگر میماند که نه از شادیست، نه از اندوه، بلکه از آن جنس آشفتگیست که فقط هنر اصیل می��تواند برانگیزاند. پالپ فیکشن بارها ما را میخنداند، اما خندهای تلخ، رهاشده، و مرزی با فریاد.
شخصیتها – جولز، وینسنت، بوچ، مارسلوس، میا – هیچکدام قرار نیست رشد کنند. آنها در حالتی از تعلیق وجودی زندگی میکنند؛ گاه با تهمایهای از نیهیلیسم، گاه با تقلایی کودکانه برای معنا. تنها جایی که تغییر دیده میشود، همان جاییست که ناگهان، «ایمان» از دل بیمعنایی سر میزند: مونولوگ پایانی جولز، که از دل خون و تفنگ، سراغ چیزی شبیه به نجات میرود – نه نجاتی مذهبی، بلکه انسانی؛ در حد چند قدم دور شدن از دایرهٔ خشونت.
موسیقی، فیلمبرداری، و تدوین در خدمت خلق یک اتمسفر بینظیرند؛ اتمسفری که نه رئالیستیست، نه فانتزی، بلکه چیزیست بین این دو: یک دنیای برساخته از خاطرات سینمایی، فرهنگ عامه، و شوخطبعیای که به مرز تهوع نزدیک میشود ولی آنقدر هوشمند است که توی ذوق نزند.
پالپ فیکشن را نمیتوان در یک ژانر یا یک طبقهبندی جا داد، همانطور که نمیتوان آن را قضاوت اخلاقی کرد. این فیلم، مانند خود زندگی، پر از تناقض است: مفرح و مرگبار، سطحی و عمیق، احمقانه و درخشان. تارانتینو نشان میدهد که میشود دربارهٔ هیچ، شاهکار ساخت؛ میشود از چیزهای بیربط، یک کل تأثیرگذار درآورد؛ و میشود در جهانی که هیچچیز سر جایش نیست، هنوز از طریق سینما، نظمی دیوانهوار خلق کرد.
پالپ فیکشن نه برای آموزش است، نه برای عبرت گرفتن؛ بلکه برای تجربه کردن است. تجربهٔ ورود به جهانی که آینهایست از جامعهٔ امروز: پر از خشونت، طنز، بیقراری، مصرفگرایی، غرور، وفاداری، و عطش معنا در دنیایی بیمعنا. و شاید به همین دلیل است که این فیلم، برخلاف اسمش، هرگز «پالپ» نمیشود: چون از جنس زباله نیست؛ از جنس حقیقتیست که با شوخی و گلوله بیان میشود.
غرور و وفاداری، دو نیروی درونی و گاه متضاد، در تار و پود روایت تنیده شدهاند. بوچ بهخاطر غروری شخصی و حس وفاداری به اصول خودش، ریسک میکند، خیانت نمیکند، و به جای فرار از مهلکه، به دلش میزند. وینسنت با تمام خونسردیاش، بندهایست اسیر غرور، که سهلانگاریاش – در کشدارترین و کماحساسترین لحظه – به سقوطش ختم میشود. وفاداری به ارباب، به شریک، به معشوق، حتی وفاداری به یک سبک زندگی – همواره چون خطی پنهان زیر خشونت و دیالوگهای بیرحمانهی فیلم جاریست. این وفاداری گاه تقدیر را رقم میزند، و گاه فاجعه را.
تارانتینو در این اثر، ساختار کلاسیک روایت را منفجر میکند. او با زمان بازی میکند، با ژانر بازی میکند، با تماشاگر بازی میکند. دیالوگهایی که ظاهراً بیاهمیتاند – مثل بحث دربارهی نام همبرگر در فرانسه یا ماساژ پا – در واقع شاکلهی جهانبینی فیلماند: جهانی که در آن چیزهای بیربط، تعیینکنندهاند. جهانی که مرگ میتواند در لحظهای مسخره، وسط حرف زدن از نوشابه، فرا برسد.
طنز سیاه فیلم، نه فقط ابزار سرگرمیست، بلکه چاقوییست بر گلوی فرهنگ. لحظهای که یک تفنگ وسط ماشین شلیک میکند به سر یک جوان و بعد با خونسردی دربارهی تمیز کردن ماشین بحث میشود، خندهای در گلوی تماشاگر میماند که نه از شادیست، نه از اندوه، بلکه از آن جنس آشفتگیست که فقط هنر اصیل می��تواند برانگیزاند. پالپ فیکشن بارها ما را میخنداند، اما خندهای تلخ، رهاشده، و مرزی با فریاد.
شخصیتها – جولز، وینسنت، بوچ، مارسلوس، میا – هیچکدام قرار نیست رشد کنند. آنها در حالتی از تعلیق وجودی زندگی میکنند؛ گاه با تهمایهای از نیهیلیسم، گاه با تقلایی کودکانه برای معنا. تنها جایی که تغییر دیده میشود، همان جاییست که ناگهان، «ایمان» از دل بیمعنایی سر میزند: مونولوگ پایانی جولز، که از دل خون و تفنگ، سراغ چیزی شبیه به نجات میرود – نه نجاتی مذهبی، بلکه انسانی؛ در حد چند قدم دور شدن از دایرهٔ خشونت.
موسیقی، فیلمبرداری، و تدوین در خدمت خلق یک اتمسفر بینظیرند؛ اتمسفری که نه رئالیستیست، نه فانتزی، بلکه چیزیست بین این دو: یک دنیای برساخته از خاطرات سینمایی، فرهنگ عامه، و شوخطبعیای که به مرز تهوع نزدیک میشود ولی آنقدر هوشمند است که توی ذوق نزند.
پالپ فیکشن را نمیتوان در یک ژانر یا یک طبقهبندی جا داد، همانطور که نمیتوان آن را قضاوت اخلاقی کرد. این فیلم، مانند خود زندگی، پر از تناقض است: مفرح و مرگبار، سطحی و عمیق، احمقانه و درخشان. تارانتینو نشان میدهد که میشود دربارهٔ هیچ، شاهکار ساخت؛ میشود از چیزهای بیربط، یک کل تأثیرگذار درآورد؛ و میشود در جهانی که هیچچیز سر جایش نیست، هنوز از طریق سینما، نظمی دیوانهوار خلق کرد.
پالپ فیکشن نه برای آموزش است، نه برای عبرت گرفتن؛ بلکه برای تجربه کردن است. تجربهٔ ورود به جهانی که آینهایست از جامعهٔ امروز: پر از خشونت، طنز، بیقراری، مصرفگرایی، غرور، وفاداری، و عطش معنا در دنیایی بیمعنا. و شاید به همین دلیل است که این فیلم، برخلاف اسمش، هرگز «پالپ» نمیشود: چون از جنس زباله نیست؛ از جنس حقیقتیست که با شوخی و گلوله بیان میشود.
September 13, 2020
Reading Quinton scripts sometimes are better than the film. He makes many film refences to illustrate the shot, actor’s behavior, or the image he is attempting to emulate. This is a must for anyone wanting to write scripts or just want to enjoy good writing.
April 10, 2015
"Pulp Fiction" was the first work by Quentin Tarantino I ever read. Since then I've moved on and I've read "Reservoir Dogs" too. I'd heard a lot about Quentin's writing and I'd seen snippets of the Kill Bill-movies. I don't think I was prepared for the style of Pulp Fiction though, very surprising and fun.
Quentin Tarantino is (obviously) not a literary writer, he's a moviemaker: "Pulp Fiction" is a screenplay. This might not matter to some people, but for me it really changed my reading experience. Every "chapter" is a different scene in the movie, and the writing describes how every scene starts and ends. The descriptions are different from descriptions in a 'normal' novel, they are very much playing on the visual. You can literally see the story happening before your eyes, much more than with a novel. All the dialogue is written out underneath eachother, which makes this book a very quick read. On the other hand, you an't hear the thoughts of any of the characters, which is a bit strange. The story-teller is completely outside of the story, like a spectator, he's not following anyone, not acknowledging anyone's thoughts our emotions or motives. Very different from literature I think, but fascinating.
The story follows 3 different storylines, all different, colourfull people who in the end connect together to give a beautiful overview of an underworld-network.
The piece is full of drugs, violence and lots of swearing. It's was a bit shocking in the beginning to be honest. But after a couple pages I really got into the mood of the story and it was f***ing great!
The dialogue in this book is hilarious and the characters are so big and bad, it’s almost satire. The story is written really well: this book could easily have become one of those ‘look at how badass we are’-stories, but Tarantino sprinkles in so many funny lines, it becomes really bizarre and clever. And eventhough the story is bloody and 'ugly', it never became too 'flat' for me. Not that the story was emotional, but it was witty and fun, without being to much of a joke. The balance is very fine I think and Quentin did it exactly right.
It’s a short book, she just read it, because honestly I can’t explain how great this book is. Read it, you’ll see.
Quentin Tarantino is (obviously) not a literary writer, he's a moviemaker: "Pulp Fiction" is a screenplay. This might not matter to some people, but for me it really changed my reading experience. Every "chapter" is a different scene in the movie, and the writing describes how every scene starts and ends. The descriptions are different from descriptions in a 'normal' novel, they are very much playing on the visual. You can literally see the story happening before your eyes, much more than with a novel. All the dialogue is written out underneath eachother, which makes this book a very quick read. On the other hand, you an't hear the thoughts of any of the characters, which is a bit strange. The story-teller is completely outside of the story, like a spectator, he's not following anyone, not acknowledging anyone's thoughts our emotions or motives. Very different from literature I think, but fascinating.
The story follows 3 different storylines, all different, colourfull people who in the end connect together to give a beautiful overview of an underworld-network.
The piece is full of drugs, violence and lots of swearing. It's was a bit shocking in the beginning to be honest. But after a couple pages I really got into the mood of the story and it was f***ing great!
The dialogue in this book is hilarious and the characters are so big and bad, it’s almost satire. The story is written really well: this book could easily have become one of those ‘look at how badass we are’-stories, but Tarantino sprinkles in so many funny lines, it becomes really bizarre and clever. And eventhough the story is bloody and 'ugly', it never became too 'flat' for me. Not that the story was emotional, but it was witty and fun, without being to much of a joke. The balance is very fine I think and Quentin did it exactly right.
It’s a short book, she just read it, because honestly I can’t explain how great this book is. Read it, you’ll see.
April 11, 2016
I love Tarantino. Obviously his writing is wonderful. He changed the game for a lot of years. This work is a blast and we’re all lucky to have it. My one complaint would be about its influence, haha. Tarantino makes it look easy. However, whenever we see imitators, it’s hard not to cringe. Probably only P.T. Anderson really got away with the QT influence, and it’s probably arguable how influenced he actually was, given P.T. was already releasing films when PF hit.
If you’re a student or trying to learn how to write a screenplay, I’d advise you WAIT before diving into this book (or any QT work). People who will end up reading your work likely won’t see its merits as much as be distracted by whatever liberties you take with traditional form. In other words, it might come off like you don’t know how to write a screenplay.
If you’re new to screenwriting and jumping right to QT because he’s the best, I’d say beware. He is the best. However this great work could be a bit misleading as far as that goes. QT knew this script would likely be funded and get made when writing PF. Most of us have to worry more about formality before we make it and can start experimenting. In most cases, for most writers, the QT style doesn’t come off as QT as much as undisciplined and indulgent.
If you’re a student or trying to learn how to write a screenplay, I’d advise you WAIT before diving into this book (or any QT work). People who will end up reading your work likely won’t see its merits as much as be distracted by whatever liberties you take with traditional form. In other words, it might come off like you don’t know how to write a screenplay.
If you’re new to screenwriting and jumping right to QT because he’s the best, I’d say beware. He is the best. However this great work could be a bit misleading as far as that goes. QT knew this script would likely be funded and get made when writing PF. Most of us have to worry more about formality before we make it and can start experimenting. In most cases, for most writers, the QT style doesn’t come off as QT as much as undisciplined and indulgent.
February 12, 2008
the path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. and i will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. and you will know my name is the Lord when i lay my vengeance upon thee.
September 20, 2011
The best script I have read so far. Almost beats my all time favourites - The Royal Tenenbaums. I would even go as far as to say they are on the same level of awesomeness. I haven't seen the movie and I doubt I will (don't want anyone to ruin this script for me; even if they have Turman and Travolta).
This a screenplay masterpiece, Tarantino at his very best.
This a screenplay masterpiece, Tarantino at his very best.
July 30, 2019
Tarantino's script - or playbook - (Faber 1999) contains a few minor excerpts which were cut from the film, a few minor insertions into the film post-script, and a single point of replacement, that being the scene where Vincent goes into Marcellus's house to pick up Mia (pp.43-51). The drop-outs and inclusions are minor; the replacement scene in Marcellus's house with Vincent and Mia is cooler than the original draft - principally because it is less revealing about the quieter development of the relationship between Vincent and Mia, which is more subtly drawn in the restaurant scene. In this case, less is more.
Otherwise, the script pretty much conveys the character, events and f**ked-up brilliance of this grossly macabre black-comedy of a brutal drama that the film portrays; the only thing it can’t properly convey to a non-American is a correct sense of place. Having watched the film several times I can see the locations - the 'typical' coffee-shop, Marcellus's house interior, the Jack-Rabbit restaurant, the pawnshop, the motel, the crossroads, etc. - but I wouldn't otherwise have been able to imagine some of these locations with any sense of place - because a coffee shop in England is not typically a huge eatery at the crossroads of a matrix, as many such joints are in American towns; it's a quaint little Elizabethan higgledy-piggledy building up a cobbled lane...
Having seen the film [1994], of course, the entire script makes sense, bookended - as Prologue and Epilogue - with the young Pumpkin and Honey Bunch holding up the coffee-shop/breakfast joint. Tarantino uses time-chunking to break the conventional Hollywood linear story arc: i.e. that of 1st turning point, 2nd turning point, climax/resolution finale. Instead, he commences the film with one sub-plot (Pumpkin and Honey Bunch) and drops it to develop the first main plot (Vincent and Jules), Act 1, if you like, which seems to hit the 1st TP in the slaughter of the young men, but which actually hits that point in that story arc much later towards the end of the film with the accidental killing of Marvin in the back of the car, the commencement of Act 3.
Inbetween this and the concluding event (the Epilogue). Act 1 is about Mia and Vincent at Marcellus's home, the restaurant, then back, and the cocaine overdose and climax of the adrenaline injection. It ends with a pact of secrecy between Mia and Vincent, who have grown fond of each other, and trust each other, after one date. This is the 1st TP.
Then we cut to the second main plot - The Gold Watch, Act 2 - between Butch and Marcellus. The TP here (#2) is the reconciliation in the basement of the pawnshop, where their feud ends, Butch leaving Marcellus to his vengeance while he goes and collects Fabienne to clear out of town and head off with his betting wins to some sunny island.
Act 3 - The Bonnie Situation - recommences with the Fourth Man, Marvin, now in the back of Vincent and Jules's car, and culminates in Mr. Wolf cleaning up and dropping their car off at the scrap yard. This act runs in an earlier timeframe as Act 2, between Butch and Marcellus, because Vincent is still with Jules.
The time-chunking is used to disrupt the conventional 3TP waveform of the archetypal Hollywood linear filmmaking process, typically used in action/adventure films where mystery and suspense are non-essential to the plot of all-out action. Here, Tarantino plays slightly with the sequence of events to develop, even invert, some of the relationships in the film, and to tell a couple of stories of love (Pumpkin and Honey Bunch; Butch and Fabienne), but also to tell a couple of stories of deep friendship (Vincent and Jules, and Vincent and Mia) - all set around the power centre of Marcellus. But the final 'act' of redemption, the Epilogue, is where Jules sees the error of his ways (through the inability of the Fourth Man to kill him and Vincent), in letting the young coffee-shop robbers go, and not killing them.
But, in fact, this epilogue is the moral epilogue, not the temporal epilogue, because Vincent is 'later' killed by Butch, placing the epilogue roughly two-thirds through the film in linear temporality.
Despite all the violence, gore and perversions in the film (armed robbery, the OD, several young men getting shot, one his head blown off; a boxer punched to death, an enforcer [Vincent] ended, Butch driving into Marcellus, the gimp, Marcellus's rape, Marcellus's imagined revenge on the two hillbilly brothers, the bloody car and its disposal), the story is full of powerful and moving developments of trust and love and is bound by a perverse series of loyalties, enmities and reconciliations, and ends in a moment of redemption for Jules, who finally saves two lives instead of ending them - effectively retiring, while not (we get the irony and the pun).
But the moral prevarications aside - and immorality is central to the film, contrasting with all these loyalties and reconciliations - there are streams interwoven of deep friendship, respect and new-found love, blended amidst a violent web of gangland retribution, drug-dealing and violent enforcement of tribal competition.
Is it a good script? You bet your mother**kin' ass it is. It reads superbly, it directs concisely, it describes perhaps a little overlong on details of Americana unfamiliar (cars, franchises, quotidian American references), but it is fluid, absorbing, repelling and gripping all at once, just this side of the razor blade of its violence. Scenes like the Air Force man Captain Koons's visit are at once profound and messily comic, and it's this mix of strange loyalties and its brutality that makes Pulp Fiction a great script. What makes it a good film is that it is superbly cast in all parts except the minor female ones (Arquette as Jody, de Medeiro as Fabienne, the unseen Jimmie's wife, and the anonymous - and non-essential - Raquel and Trudi). But the part of Mia is central to the film not merely in plot terms, but as a moral fulcrum about which the rest of the characters and action in some way or other pivot and revolve, and Act 2, "Vincent Vega and Marcellus Wallace's Wife" is the heartening centre of an otherwise brutal script/film, and yet does not even mention Mia's name in it: she is, merely, it seems, Marcellus Wallace's wife.
Otherwise, the script pretty much conveys the character, events and f**ked-up brilliance of this grossly macabre black-comedy of a brutal drama that the film portrays; the only thing it can’t properly convey to a non-American is a correct sense of place. Having watched the film several times I can see the locations - the 'typical' coffee-shop, Marcellus's house interior, the Jack-Rabbit restaurant, the pawnshop, the motel, the crossroads, etc. - but I wouldn't otherwise have been able to imagine some of these locations with any sense of place - because a coffee shop in England is not typically a huge eatery at the crossroads of a matrix, as many such joints are in American towns; it's a quaint little Elizabethan higgledy-piggledy building up a cobbled lane...
Having seen the film [1994], of course, the entire script makes sense, bookended - as Prologue and Epilogue - with the young Pumpkin and Honey Bunch holding up the coffee-shop/breakfast joint. Tarantino uses time-chunking to break the conventional Hollywood linear story arc: i.e. that of 1st turning point, 2nd turning point, climax/resolution finale. Instead, he commences the film with one sub-plot (Pumpkin and Honey Bunch) and drops it to develop the first main plot (Vincent and Jules), Act 1, if you like, which seems to hit the 1st TP in the slaughter of the young men, but which actually hits that point in that story arc much later towards the end of the film with the accidental killing of Marvin in the back of the car, the commencement of Act 3.
Inbetween this and the concluding event (the Epilogue). Act 1 is about Mia and Vincent at Marcellus's home, the restaurant, then back, and the cocaine overdose and climax of the adrenaline injection. It ends with a pact of secrecy between Mia and Vincent, who have grown fond of each other, and trust each other, after one date. This is the 1st TP.
Then we cut to the second main plot - The Gold Watch, Act 2 - between Butch and Marcellus. The TP here (#2) is the reconciliation in the basement of the pawnshop, where their feud ends, Butch leaving Marcellus to his vengeance while he goes and collects Fabienne to clear out of town and head off with his betting wins to some sunny island.
Act 3 - The Bonnie Situation - recommences with the Fourth Man, Marvin, now in the back of Vincent and Jules's car, and culminates in Mr. Wolf cleaning up and dropping their car off at the scrap yard. This act runs in an earlier timeframe as Act 2, between Butch and Marcellus, because Vincent is still with Jules.
The time-chunking is used to disrupt the conventional 3TP waveform of the archetypal Hollywood linear filmmaking process, typically used in action/adventure films where mystery and suspense are non-essential to the plot of all-out action. Here, Tarantino plays slightly with the sequence of events to develop, even invert, some of the relationships in the film, and to tell a couple of stories of love (Pumpkin and Honey Bunch; Butch and Fabienne), but also to tell a couple of stories of deep friendship (Vincent and Jules, and Vincent and Mia) - all set around the power centre of Marcellus. But the final 'act' of redemption, the Epilogue, is where Jules sees the error of his ways (through the inability of the Fourth Man to kill him and Vincent), in letting the young coffee-shop robbers go, and not killing them.
But, in fact, this epilogue is the moral epilogue, not the temporal epilogue, because Vincent is 'later' killed by Butch, placing the epilogue roughly two-thirds through the film in linear temporality.
Despite all the violence, gore and perversions in the film (armed robbery, the OD, several young men getting shot, one his head blown off; a boxer punched to death, an enforcer [Vincent] ended, Butch driving into Marcellus, the gimp, Marcellus's rape, Marcellus's imagined revenge on the two hillbilly brothers, the bloody car and its disposal), the story is full of powerful and moving developments of trust and love and is bound by a perverse series of loyalties, enmities and reconciliations, and ends in a moment of redemption for Jules, who finally saves two lives instead of ending them - effectively retiring, while not (we get the irony and the pun).
But the moral prevarications aside - and immorality is central to the film, contrasting with all these loyalties and reconciliations - there are streams interwoven of deep friendship, respect and new-found love, blended amidst a violent web of gangland retribution, drug-dealing and violent enforcement of tribal competition.
Is it a good script? You bet your mother**kin' ass it is. It reads superbly, it directs concisely, it describes perhaps a little overlong on details of Americana unfamiliar (cars, franchises, quotidian American references), but it is fluid, absorbing, repelling and gripping all at once, just this side of the razor blade of its violence. Scenes like the Air Force man Captain Koons's visit are at once profound and messily comic, and it's this mix of strange loyalties and its brutality that makes Pulp Fiction a great script. What makes it a good film is that it is superbly cast in all parts except the minor female ones (Arquette as Jody, de Medeiro as Fabienne, the unseen Jimmie's wife, and the anonymous - and non-essential - Raquel and Trudi). But the part of Mia is central to the film not merely in plot terms, but as a moral fulcrum about which the rest of the characters and action in some way or other pivot and revolve, and Act 2, "Vincent Vega and Marcellus Wallace's Wife" is the heartening centre of an otherwise brutal script/film, and yet does not even mention Mia's name in it: she is, merely, it seems, Marcellus Wallace's wife.
March 9, 2024
Tarantino is a brilliant dialogist, and he seems to possess a natural talent for constructing classic and iconic scenes with ease; as if being a wildly entertaining storyteller and stylish auteur comes effortlessly to him. Honestly, if his upcoming film "The Movie Critic" is really going to be his last (and man is it shaping up to be a fine epitaph), its release is sure to be quite bittersweet for cinema enthusiasts everywhere. On a brighter note, at least he isn't planning on total retirement, but instead aims to switch lanes and pursue his long postponed, yet equally auspicious, writing career. Truly a one of a kind artist.
January 27, 2021
Tarantino said in an interview that, when he writes, it's all about the literature. He writes and rewrites the script, tweaks it until it's perfect, he believes, his task is done with 'The End', even if it's not made into a movie.
Reading Pulp fiction screenplay is like watching the movie from memory.
Enjoyed every bit of it.
Reading Pulp fiction screenplay is like watching the movie from memory.
Enjoyed every bit of it.
January 22, 2025
Un libro excelente, es bastante semejante por no decir idéntico a la película, en donde mostrarán escenas que no se incluyeron en la versión final. Si quieres leerlo te lo recomiendo, aunque tal vez algo más espontáneo es la película.
La experiencia no se pierde en nada, recomendado 100%
La experiencia no se pierde en nada, recomendado 100%
Displaying 1 - 30 of 197 reviews